State v. Sowell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 182 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] calculated decision to kill is not altered by the fact that the scheme is directed at someone other than the actual victim. Therefore, we hold that if one purposefully causes the death of another and the death is the result of a scheme designed to implement the calculated decision to kill someone other than the victim, the offender is guilty of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Williams v. Bagley · State v. Hill

2. “may rely upon and cite the nature and circumstances of the offense as reasons supporting its finding that the aggravating circumstances were sufficient to outweigh the mitigating factors.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Green · State v. Rojas

3. “Our next concern is the independent review of the record required of this court by R.C. 2929.05(A), for the purpose of determining whether the mitigating factors present in this case are outweighed by the aggravating circumstance appellant was found guilty of committing. Of the mitigating factors enumerated in R.C. 2929.04(B), only numbers (2) and (7) are applicable under the circumstances of this case. R.C. 2929.04(B)(2), which requires the sentencing body to consider whether “it is unlikely that the offense would have been committed, but for the fact that the offender was under ... strong provocation ...,” is relevant because appellant testified that his actions were motivated by the belief that Billups had robbed him. Nevertheless, this factor is entitled to little weight. This alleged provocation cannot be considered as an extenuating circumstance for the murder of Graham, since appellant suspected Bill-ups, not Graham, of the theft. R.C. 2929.04(B)(7), which directs the sentencer to consider “[a]ny other factors that are relevant to the issue of whether the offender should be sentenced to death ...,” is relevant in that appellant claims to have been intoxicated at the time of the offense. However, appellant’s claim of intoxication is entitled to little or no weight in this case for two reasons. First, appellant failed to produce any evidence of intoxication during the sentencing hearing. Second, the evidence establishes that appellant possessed the capacity to form a spe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 557 F. Supp. 2d 843 - Sowell v. Collins